Simultaneous pursuit of regular and distance degrees is not a disqualification absent specific regulatory prohibition.

The Petitioner, a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for the post of Lecturer (English) pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2019 issued by the Directorate of Public Instruction.

Despite securing a high merit rank (12th in SC category), her candidature was rejected via an order dated 26.10.2020 by the Joint Director, Directorate of Public Instruction.

The rejection was grounded on the Petitioner obtaining two degrees—Master of Arts (M.A.) in English and the first semester of B.Ed.—during the same academic year, 2017.

The Petitioner contended that the M.A. was pursued through distance learning while the B.Ed. was a regular course, resulting in no overlapping of attendance or violation of rules.

The Court examined the administrative grounds for disqualification against the framework of the recruitment advertisement and University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.

It noted that at the relevant time, the UGC had not issued any regulation prohibiting the simultaneous pursuit of two degrees.

Furthermore, the court considered the principles of administrative fairness, holding that disqualification criteria cannot be imported into a selection process if they are not explicitly specified in the recruitment advertisement.

While Respondent-Universities cited Ordinance No. 6 of Hemchand Yadav Vishwavidyalaya, Durg, the court prioritized the lack of UGC prohibition and the specific terms of the recruitment notification.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s M.A. in English was obtained through distance learning, whereas the B.Ed. was a regular course, distinguishing the two modes of study.

It highlighted that the recruitment advertisement dated 09.03.2019 contained no provision disqualifying a candidate for holding two degrees from the same academic year.

Since the UGC—the apex body for academic standards—had no prohibitory regulation in place during the relevant period, the court found the respondent's reliance on "overlapping" degrees to be legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the court reasoned that the rejection of a meritorious candidate on a ground not stipulated in the governing advertisement or by the national regulator was arbitrary and illegal.

It held that the Petitioner could not be disqualified for pursuing a distance learning degree and a regular degree simultaneously in the absence of clear statutory or advertisement-based prohibitions.

The Court directed Respondents No. 3 and 4 to reconsider the Petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Lecturer (English) and pass an appropriate order within sixty days of receiving the judgment.